Heinrich Schliemann: Hero or Fraud?

Heinrich Schliemann was a German businessman and a pioneer in the field of archaeology. His belief in the historical reality of the works of Homer caused him to lead an archaeological expedition to find proof. Schliemann’s discoveries at the excavation of Hissarlik, provided some of the best evidence ever found for the existence of a physical Troy. However his excavation techniques and historical methods created controversies inside of academic circles an lead to much criticism of his work. In his article "Heinrich Schliemann: Hero or Fraud?” author D.F. Easton analyzes the criticism that Schliemann faced in the decades after his discoveries at Hissarlik, and argues that despite his flaws there is still merit to be found in his work.

Ruins at Hissarlik

            Easton, a self-described “Schliemannologist” and somewhat of a Schliemann apologist, approaches the Schliemann’s work with a balanced analysis of the man’s strengths and weaknesses. Realizing that as a human Schliemann was prone to error Easton sets out to engage the criticism of Schliemann in three main areas. Did he falsify his discoveries, how good was he as an archaeologist, and lastly did he discover Troy. By breaking down the arguments against Schliemann’s ethics and findings Easton is able to counter some of the most common criticisms that he faced.

Mask of Agememnon

            The first question Easton addresses is whether or not Schliemann falsified his discoveries; specifically did he plant artifacts or relocate artifacts to make certain finds seem more important than they were. Some modern critics of Schliemann claim that he was a pathological liar and as a result any discrepancy in his discoveries should be viewed through that lens. Easton takes a detailed look at the evidence available and while he concedes that Schliemann was often less than honest he argues that Schliemann’s discoveries are consistent with what has been found by his predecessors, and that his detailed recordings of artifacts seem to disprove claims of dishonesty.

            He then goes on to address Schliemann’s skill as an archaeologist. Easton argues that Schliemann as an individual was not a great archaeologist by any means. However he remained open to suggestion, and surrounded himself with experts who were able to vastly improve his archaeological methods and historical reporting. Although Schliemann had a genuine historical interest in his work he suffered from an inability to disengage himself from the belief that he was digging at Priams Troy and as a result he often disregarded the other periods found at Hissarlik.

Mound at Hissarlik

Finally Easton sets out to answer if Schliemann found Troy. His answer like much of his analysis is mixed. While it is not yet possible to prove with certainty that Hissarlik is Homers Troy he argues that Schliemann undoubtedly changed many views on the historicity of the Trojan Wars. Easton concludes his piece by attempting to answer the question of whether Schliemann was a hero or a fraud. Throughout his writing Easton’s attempt at neutrality, brings to life the humanity of Schliemann. Prone to the shortcomings that we all face Schliemann was not a perfect archaeologist by any means. However he dedicated himself to his work and as a result was able to open up new doors of discovery in archaeology.  

Bibliography

Easton, D. F.  "Heinrich Schliemann: Hero or Fraud?". The Classical World, Vol. 91, No. 5, The

World of Troy (May - Jun., 1998), 335-343.

Further Reading

Payne, Robert. The Gold of Troy; The Story of Heinrich Schliemann and the Buried Cities of

Ancient Greece. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1959.

Schliemann, Heinrich, and Philip Smith. Troy and Its Remains; A Narrative of Researches and

Discoveries Made on the Site of Ilium, and in the Trojan Plain. New York: B. Blom, 1968.

Schuchardt, Karl. Schliemann's Excavations. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1974.

Traill, David A. Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and Deceit. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995.